Licensing monopoly and free choice
May 23, 2008 9:02 am RegulationSource: Boston Globe, May 21 2008
Should the government have a monopoly on medical licensing? In a recent ruling, the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine has disciplined a Cape Cod Physician for failing to renew her medical license while she continued to provide medical consultation (without prescribing medications) to other people. While this doctor did sign a contract with the government saying she would not “practice medicine” (which is another topic of dissent for another day), at what point does “practicing medicine” cross the line to become “illegal”? Why does the government insist on dictating what is good for us? While I may not agree that alternative therapy is the most beneficial treatment for a condition, is it up to my government to tell others not to promote such remedies?
Is this the government protecting me from “dangerous” people who “may” harm me, or is this the government protecting it’s monopoly by smacking the wrists of anyone, particularly anyone with an accredited medical degree, who dares give out medical advice?
Shay :
Date: May 23, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
Licensing should NOT be controlled by the government. BUT, it should not be loose either. It should be in private hands. Much like bicycle helmets are certified. People could then choose the level of certification they trust. The certifying companies could then compete. People are so use to such a huge government that they now consider that all public good must come from the government. This hypnotism is a wonderful boon for the employees of the government. Thus, it keeps growing.
Click here for CATO Article on the same.